A bill known as the “Follow the Rules Act” was signed into law by President Trump on June 14th. It is a very short bill that may prove to be important to some Federal employees who become whistleblowers.

The bill was introduced by Sean Duffy (R-WI). The purpose of the bill is to extend whistleblower protections for Federal employees who refuse to violate rules and regulations.

If a Federal employee refuses to follow an order to violate a Federal law, the employee is protected from employment retaliation based on the provisions of the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989. But, if a Federal employee disobeys an order to violate a regulation issued by the Federal government, rather than a law passed by Congress, the Federal employee is not protected. That, at least, used to be the case prior to passage of the Follow the Rules Act.r

A long-lasting legal dispute between IT contractor CA Technologies and the federal government reached a conclusion last week, as the Justice Department announced the company agreed to pay $45 million to settle allegations that it overcharged and provided false pricing information to the government.

The backstory of this conflict signifies a more aggressive stance taken by the government in dealing with contractors that mislead the government or bilk taxpayers. Public statements by both DOJ and the General Services Administration’s inspector general further suggest they are more willing than ever to prosecute contractors that play ball unfairly—even if it takes years to do so, as it did with CA.

DOJ contends New York-based CA submitted false pricing data in 2007 and again in 2009 regarding products it sold through the GSA’s Schedule 70, a multiple-awards schedule and large acquisition vehicle federal agencies use to purchase various IT products and services.

A Florida-based company known as People, Technology and Processes, LLC (PTP), along with its principals Victor Buonamia and Nicole Buonamia, have paid the government $320,000 to resolve allegations that they submitted improper invoices for work allegedly performed for the United States in support of the U.S. Army in Afghanistan.

PTP is an information technology and professional services company. Victor Buonamia is the President and CEO of PTP, and Nicole Buonamia is the CFO. During 2011 and 2012, PTP was a subcontractor to the prime contractor on a government contract awarded by the United States Army Communications-Electronics Command through the Strategic Sources Services (S3) Program.

As a subcontractor, PTP submitted invoices for its services to the prime contractor, who then paid those invoices and, in turn, billed those costs to the United States, which paid them. PTP and its principals were aware that PTP was a subcontractor on a government contract and that PTP’s bills would ultimately be presented to and paid by the U.S. government.

Between November 2011 and June 2012, PTP submitted invoices that were signed by Victor Buonamia and/or Nicole Buonamia for work allegedly done by PTP employees in Afghanistan under the S3 Contract; however, some of that work was not actually performed. Specifically, during that period, PTP submitted invoices for one employee while he was in another country on R&R for a month, billed for another employee for several weeks after PTP terminated him and flew him back to U.S., and billed one or more weeks for two other employees before they actually started working for PTP. In all, PTP improperly billed $127,990.90 for work never performed by those employees.

This settlement resolves allegations in a lawsuit filed by relator Aidan Tamer Toprakci in February 2013. That suit was filed under the whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act, which authorizes private parties to sue for false claims on behalf of the United States and to share in any recovery. Toprakci was employed by PTP in 2012 and disclosed certain of the conduct internally to PTP. The relator has received $64,000.00 from the proceeds of the settlement.

This case was investigated by the Tampa Resident Agency of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Commands Major Procurement Fraud Unit, and the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. The lawsuit was filed in the Middle District of Florida, and is captioned United States ex rel. Toprakci v. People Technology and Processes, LLC, Victor Buonamia, and Nicole Buonamia, Case No. 8:13-cv-432-T-33-MAP (M.D. Fla.).

The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability.

CA, Inc. (CA) has agreed to pay $45 million to resolve allegations under the False Claims Act that it made false statements and claims in the negotiation and administration of a General Services Administration (GSA) contract.

CA is an information technology management software and services company headquartered in New York, New York. The settlement resolves allegations related to a GSA contract awarded to CA for software licenses and maintenance services.

At the time of CA’s contract, contractors were required to fully and accurately disclose to GSA how they conducted business in the commercial marketplace so that GSA could use that information to negotiate a fair price for government agencies using the GSA contract to purchase CA products and services.

The contract also contained a price reduction clause that set forth when the contractor had to reduce the prices it charged to the government if its prices to commercial customers improved.

The settlement between CA and the federal government resolves allegations that CA did not fully and accurately disclose its discounting practices to GSA contracting officers. Specifically, the agreement resolves claims that CA provided false information about the discounts it gave commercial customers for its software licenses and maintenance services at the time the contract was negotiated in 2002 and was extended in 2007 and 2009. Additionally, the settlement resolves claims that CA violated the price reduction clause in the contract by not providing government customers with additional discounts when commercial discounts improved.

The allegations against CA were first made in a whistleblower lawsuit filed under the False Claims Act by Dani Shemesh, a former employee of CA Software Israel LTD. Under the False Claims Act, private individuals can sue on behalf of the government and share in any recovery. The False Claims Act also allows the government to intervene and take over the action, as it did, in part, in this case. Shemesh’s share of the settlement is $10.195 million.

This case was handled by the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, and the GSA Office of Inspector General.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced this settlement on Friday (Mar. 10, 2017). The lawsuit is captioned United States ex rel. Shemesh v. CA, Inc., No. 09-1600 (D.D.C.). The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability.

J. Kirk McGill was a Senior Auditor at the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), the agency responsible for auditing the Department of Defense’s (DoD) contract expenditures. He is also a whistleblower whose disclosures to Congress have resulted in multiple Congressional hearings, the termination of a nonprofit from grants worth over $400 million, and the closure of a loophole in contracting policy for nonprofit grantees.

Importantly, his case also sets a precedent for federal whistleblowers to engage in whistleblowing activities while on official time. None of this was easy, and it came—as is too often the case for whistleblowers—at a personal cost to McGill.

In 2013, McGill and his DCAA team were loaned out to the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Inspector General (IG) to conduct a follow-up audit of the $433 million construction grant NSF had awarded for a project called the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON). The project was not competitively bid, and despite an earlier DCAA audit finding serious problems with the initial proposal, NSF awarded it to a nonprofit organization called NEON, Inc.—a nonprofit focused solely on the project.

McGill, who was the Auditor-in-Charge, and his team found that NEON, Inc.’s accounting system was seriously flawed and lacked important supporting documentation. The audit also found poor budget controls that meant the project managers wouldn’t know if the program ran over budget—even tens of millions of dollars over budget—until it was too late to prevent. (The NSF later admitted that the project had run $80 million over budget.) As concerning as those numbers are, the audit also found that NEON, Inc. was abusing a $1.8 million category of funds called “management fees,” which were being used to pay for unallowable costs like alcohol, lobbying, and a lavish holiday party. McGill reported two instances of suspected fraud to the NSF IG through the normal channels. The IG investigated and referred the cases to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for potential prosecution, but DOJ declined to pursue them [p.3].

When McGill examined the requirements of reporting suspected fraud in an audit report, he found himself trapped.